Letter: Congregate Meals/Havelock Library

By George Liner, Havelock

Published: Friday, July 12, 2013 at 03:48 PM.

This is in response to a letter appearing in the Sun Journal on July 7 titled “Congregate meals program.” Is it not great that we live in such a country that two people can agree to disagree? This is where I feel we are in relation to the meals and library programs as it pertains to eastern
Craven
County
.

The letter stated that the standards for the congregant meals program are being implemented on a county wide basis. My question would be — does that make it any more right? With those elected officials who control and decide funding it may seem it’s right and justified. However, to imply that these new county developed standards were implemented across the county should have all citizens concerned. Especially, since four different personnel had to interpret the requirements. We all know it’s difficult to get two people to understand what was written the same way, let alone four. It is of opinion that such subjectivity leaves too much room for error. Were the exact same standard review procedures performed at each site? I believe that did not happen since it was completed by, again, four individual personnel.

In reference to the library, one statement Chairman Scott Dacey and I can agree on is “That they are not doing a sufficient job in keeping the public informed.” That is so true. The disbursement of computers in 2012 seems to have gotten lost to the public. Meaning, I cannot find anyone, to include a
Craven
County
commissioner, a
Havelock
commissioner who also sits on the Havelock Library Board, or any other member of that
Havelock
library board who was or is aware of that offer being made at the local level.

The offers from our local businesses are always welcomed and very much appreciated. The request to the county from
Havelock
was for 14 new computers at a total cost of $10k. The proposal was for a 60/40 agreement for payment between the city and county. Remember this is a county library.

The statement to “treat all equitably” is again left up to interpretation; those who control the money always feels it’s equitable in their minds. To make decisions that affect both municipalities and their citizens within the county without input from those sources seems wrong. Please do not tell me to voice concerns at a public hearing. And then for record open the hearing prior to me speaking, stating that the decision has already been made. That is wrong.

Personally, from a N.C. School of Government elected officials seminar I attended a few years ago, public problems, values and choices were discussed. We learned that because one issue value means having less of another, as an elected official, we must seek solutions to public problems that achieve the best balance between the other issue values. When applying this standard and lack of community input prior to decision making, I am of the belief that
Craven
County
’s elected leadership’s July 7 published letter statement, “it has been the goal of the current board of commissioners to treat all equitably. I believe we have met that goal while working to maintain meals for those who are in most need” is in error.

This is in response to a letter appearing in the Sun Journal on July 7 titled “Congregate meals program.” Is it not great that we live in such a country that two people can agree to disagree? This is where I feel we are in relation to the meals and library programs as it pertains to eastern CravenCounty.

The letter stated that the standards for the congregant meals program are being implemented on a county wide basis. My question would be — does that make it any more right? With those elected officials who control and decide funding it may seem it’s right and justified. However, to imply that these new county developed standards were implemented across the county should have all citizens concerned. Especially, since four different personnel had to interpret the requirements. We all know it’s difficult to get two people to understand what was written the same way, let alone four. It is of opinion that such subjectivity leaves too much room for error. Were the exact same standard review procedures performed at each site? I believe that did not happen since it was completed by, again, four individual personnel.

In reference to the library, one statement Chairman Scott Dacey and I can agree on is “That they are not doing a sufficient job in keeping the public informed.” That is so true. The disbursement of computers in 2012 seems to have gotten lost to the public. Meaning, I cannot find anyone, to include a CravenCounty commissioner, a Havelock commissioner who also sits on the Havelock Library Board, or any other member of that Havelock library board who was or is aware of that offer being made at the local level.

The offers from our local businesses are always welcomed and very much appreciated. The request to the county from Havelock was for 14 new computers at a total cost of $10k. The proposal was for a 60/40 agreement for payment between the city and county. Remember this is a county library.

The statement to “treat all equitably” is again left up to interpretation; those who control the money always feels it’s equitable in their minds. To make decisions that affect both municipalities and their citizens within the county without input from those sources seems wrong. Please do not tell me to voice concerns at a public hearing. And then for record open the hearing prior to me speaking, stating that the decision has already been made. That is wrong.

Personally, from a N.C. School of Government elected officials seminar I attended a few years ago, public problems, values and choices were discussed. We learned that because one issue value means having less of another, as an elected official, we must seek solutions to public problems that achieve the best balance between the other issue values. When applying this standard and lack of community input prior to decision making, I am of the belief that CravenCounty’s elected leadership’s July 7 published letter statement, “it has been the goal of the current board of commissioners to treat all equitably. I believe we have met that goal while working to maintain meals for those who are in most need” is in error.